Faculty Workload Model

Kennesaw State University

(Approved by the Faculty Senate on April 9, 2007)

I. Introduction:

This model neither increases nor decreases anyone’s workload. Its purpose is to provide a common vocabulary to describe the varied work faculty members do and an agreed framework for discussions of that work. It establishes some core standards, for instance that a typical semester-long, three-credit course ordinarily represents 10% of faculty effort for the academic year, and that all faculty must allocate at least 5% of their time to professional service activities. The model also requires that equivalencies for non-standard faculty activities (e.g., supervision of significant undergraduate research) be formally negotiated and incorporated into the faculty assessment process. The model does not dictate, or even favor, any particular mix of activities. That mix is for individual faculty members and their chairs to agree upon (with their dean’s approval) based on institutional needs and KSU’s shared governance process. The hope is that the core standards and the common vocabulary this model provides will enable KSU to distribute faculty work more wisely, to assess it more accurately and to reward it more appropriately.

II. The Workload Model and Shared Governance:

Each department and college will establish flexible guidelines as to expectations of faculty members in the four faculty performance areas:

(1) Teaching, Supervising and Mentoring;

(2) Research and Creative Activity;

(3) Professional Service;

(4) Administration and Leadership.

These guidelines, as well as the individual Faculty Performance agreements negotiated under them will be established through KSU’s shared governance process by bodies and officers detailed in the Faculty Handbook under “Governance in the Colleges.” Given that department T&P guidelines are most discipline-specific and are approved by deans and the Provost as consistent with college and university standards, department guidelines are understood to be the primary basis for T&P decisions. As with other faculty-focused KSU policy documents, amendments to the University’s Workload Model are made by administrators and Faculty Senate working consultatively through the shared governance processes outlined in this Handbook.

III. The Workload Model and Faculty Performance Agreements:

Each individual faculty member will divide his/her professional efforts among the four faculty performance areas noted in Section II, above. That division of effort will be reflected in a Faculty Performance Agreement (FPA) between the individual faculty member and the university. The FPA details the specifics of the faculty member’s assignment for the year, including course assignments and the percentages of effort devoted to Research and Creativity, Professional Service, and/or Administration and Leadership. Negotiation of individual FPA’s allows for diversity across colleges and departments and, within departments, among individual faculty members. Colleges and departments, in consultation with faculty stakeholders, determine which FPA combinations best suit their college and departmental objectives. FPA’s may change from year to year and even from semester to semester as needs and opportunities change. Consistent with the University’s culture of shared governance, the details of an individual FPA are worked out in consultation between the chair and the faculty member and are subject to final approval by the dean. If the faculty member and chair cannot reach agreement on the FPA, the dean will make the final determination.

IV. (Purely Illustrative) Examples:

Some examples of possible FPA workload combinations appear below. The examples reflect various percentages of effort in the four faculty performance areas (see above Section II). Please note that the footnotes explanatory to the examples define important principles. Read the footnotes carefully. The examples given are merely illustrative. Individual FPA’s can vary almost infinitely, as agreed by the faculty member and chair and as approved by the dean.

SOME ILLUSTRATIVE WORKLOAD EXAMPLES*
*Actual FPA percentages for each faculty member will be negotiated with the department chair as part of annual review.
		% of
Teaching emphasis		Effort
4-4 course load	Teaching^1	80
	Scholarship of Teaching or Service^2	10
	Service^3	10
	Total^4	100
Teaching – Research/Creative Activity balance
3-3 course load	Teaching^1	60
	R/CA^2	30
	Service^3	10
	Total^4	100
Teaching – Service balance
3-3 course load	Teaching^1	60
	Scholarship of Teaching or Service^2	10
	Service^3	30
	Total^4	100
Research/Creativity Activity emphasis
2-2 course load	Teaching^1	40
	R/CA^2	55
	Service^3	5
	Total^4	100
Admin/Leadership emph.
Chair or Director	Admin/Ldshp	70
	Scholarship (of Admin/Ldshp.)^2	10
	Teaching^1	20
		100

1. The full title is Teaching, Supervising and Mentoring. A three-credit hour class represents 10% of faculty effort for the academic year. Disciplines with writing-intensive courses, laboratory courses, studio and field experiences, etc., or with unusually heavy supervising and mentoring responsibilities, will work out equivalencies through the shared governance process.

2. Section IV (Evaluation of the Quality and Significance of Faculty Scholarly Accomplishments) on page 5.58 of the 2006-07 Faculty Handbook indicates that:

· Every faculty member is expected to demonstrate scholarly activity in all performance areas.

· Tenure-track faculty members must produce scholarship in at least one performance area.

In the model examples above, faculty with an emphasis in research and creative activity will produce scholarship in their respective areas of discipline expertise or creative work. Those in the teaching emphasis or teaching/service model will produce scholarship in one of those two areas.

3. Please note that every FPA must reflect the allocation of at least 5% of the faculty member’s KSU time commitment to Service activities.

4. Undergraduate research, directed studies and similar activities must be formally recognized in one of the three performance areas, with equivalencies negotiated through the shared governance process.